Arguments and more arguments

[Ginnipe]

Why is it that everyone seems to argue for some of the worst reasons, I see people argue over what their favorite color is and usualy the argumnt consits of just
" My favorite color is blue" and then the other person says
"Blue is stupid red is the way to go"

The worst part is, people can even think of reasons why the other opinion, blue in this case, is so bad, and then they'll just come up with reasons to insult the other person to get off the topic.

The worst part is that most arguments can go on and on about the others opinion, OPINIONS ARN'T SUPPOSED TO BE ARGUED, THATS WHY THEY'RE CALLED OPNIONS, THE OTHER PERSONS THOUGHTS NOT YOURS. But seriosly, if your going to argue, argue for a reason and make sure you can back it up.

comment and reply, and please excuse any grammar or spelling mistakes, just stay on topic.

 

[bodyklok]

Is this because of that "Justify God" thread? I know you didn't mention religion but still...

 

[Sissas]

well, the whole point of having an opinion is to share it and discuss and compare it with others. if people can't justify their opinions with reasonable arguments then it's an intelligence issue! if you have an opinion about something and you can't defend it in a way better than insulting the opposite side, well, then you kind of suck

 

[crudus]

Well, competition has been encoded in our DNA (whether it be for food, shelter, mates, etc) so I guess humans naturally find something to fight about.

 

[chronobreak]

Most arguments stem from peoples opinions on any given subject, and if people couldn't argue their opinions, there would be very little discussion on this site.

 

[StarStruckStrumpets]

Well, competition has been encoded in our DNA (whether it be for food, shelter, mates, etc) so I guess humans naturally find something to fight about.

Quite right. On that note, I will fight you...why? Because I want your land!

 

[SmartIdiot]

Arguments are fun! Conflict is necessary! If you went your entire life without getting into a fistfight over your favourite colour (been there) then you'd just be a total wuss at the end of it. Not everyone can agree, no, but nor should we always say "well I respect your opinion even though I don't agree with it" or "while I do not agree with what you say I will defend to the death your right to say it". Sometimes it's fun to have inane arguements.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm gonna go and kick the crap out of my best friend for disagreeing on the word of the week.

 

[crudus]

if people couldn't argue their opinions, there would be very little discussion on this site.

There's a difference than arguing and discussing though. Discussion goes like this "I like apples because they are healthy and are slightly tart" "Well I like eating a bowl of sugar for lunch because it's sweet and gives me lots of energy"

Argument: "I like apples because they are actually good for you unlike your breakfast"
"hey, fuck you! Sugar is tasty and goes great with milk and gives me way more energy than some crappy apple"

Both of them are fueled by opinions while in the former each person accepts the others opinion and validates their own. In the latter, both parties backs their opinions but insists that theirs is correct.

edit: there are somethings you argue (like things that can be backed with facts) and things you shouldn't (like things based solely on opinion). Using the above example you can argue if sugar or an apple is better for your body but you can't (sensibly) argue which one tastes better.

 

[chronobreak]

There's a difference than arguing and discussing though. Discussion goes like this "I like apples because they are healthy and are slightly tart" "Well I like eating a bowl of sugar for lunch because it's sweet and gives me lots of energy"

Argument: "I like apples because they are actually good for you unlike your breakfast"
"hey, fuck you! Sugar is tasty and goes great with milk and gives me way more energy than some crappy apple"

Both of them are fueled by opinions while in the former each person accepts the others opinion and validates their own. In the latter, both parties backs their opinions but insists that theirs is correct.

Who really wants to read a discussion about apples, though? And without argument, wouldn't it just become kind of a list thread, or something that could be done with a poll? Like "Do you like apples, yes or no"? I don't want to sift through a bunch of pages of people saying they like or dislike apples with no arguing going on. And, you can still argue your point, while accepting that the other person isn't going to change their opinion.

 

[Shepard's Shadow]

I love argueing personally. Maybe b/c i'm good at it.

 

[Whiskyjakk]

Can you really call it an opinion if you can't justify it? In that case it clearly hasn't been thought through properly, and I'd say that makes it more like vocalised bollocks.

Well, competition has been encoded in our DNA (whether it be for food, shelter, mates, etc) so I guess humans naturally find something to fight about.

Speaking of argument, I would argue with this statement. DNA provides code for proteins to be assembled in cells; a protein cannot make you competitive. Unless you want to argue that the innate psychology of a will to survive as embodied by a competitive nature is genetically determined, which might put you on sticky philosophical ground.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Because blue is stupid and red is the way to go, OP.

You were clearly in the wrong.

 

[crudus]

There's a difference than arguing and discussing though. Discussion goes like this "I like apples because they are healthy and are slightly tart" "Well I like eating a bowl of sugar for lunch because it's sweet and gives me lots of energy"

Argument: "I like apples because they are actually good for you unlike your breakfast"
"hey, fuck you! Sugar is tasty and goes great with milk and gives me way more energy than some crappy apple"

Both of them are fueled by opinions while in the former each person accepts the others opinion and validates their own. In the latter, both parties backs their opinions but insists that theirs is correct.

Who really wants to read a discussion about apples, though? And without argument, wouldn't it just become kind of a list thread, or something that could be done with a poll? Like "Do you like apples, yes or no"? I don't want to sift through a bunch of pages of people saying they like or dislike apples with no arguing going on. And, you can still argue your point, while accepting that the other person isn't going to change their opinion.

Sorry, I forgot an important detail: Discussing is just sharing your opinions or beliefs while arguing is trying to "persuade" the other that you are correct. You can have interesting discussions (like a discussion about different religions) and you can have interesting arguments (like if Hitler was a necessary evil). You can cross the line into a "bad argument" when your opinions are no longer backed by facts. Ginnipe is complaining about the "bad arguments" (as I deemed them).

 

[BlackHat]

Meow meow meow meow ?

 

[Knonsense]

Arguing can be kind of fun, honestly. My best friends and I really enjoy arguing about really dumb things in really dumb ways.

Like this one time when my friend asserted that Whitesnake did "Rock You Like a Hurricane" and I made it clear that, although I couldn't place the blame on the scorpions at the moment, I did own Whitesnake's definitive collection and that "Rock You Like a Hurricane" was conspicuously absent. He continued to hold his ground. A bet was made, and I won when we verified that Whitesnake was not responsible.

Anyway, dumb arguments are fun in some environments. This doesn't work on the Escapist, however, due to the widespread proliferation of rational thought here.

 

[Worsle]

Well, competition has been encoded in our DNA (whether it be for food, shelter, mates, etc) so I guess humans naturally find something to fight about.

Speaking of argument, I would argue with this statement. DNA provides code for proteins to be assembled in cells; a protein cannot make you competitive. Unless you want to argue that the innate psychology of a will to survive as embodied by a competitive nature is genetically determined, which might put you on sticky philosophical ground.

That is a poor argument to make and it is not a philosophical issue either. This is a biological one, biological systems are built to survive (as in if they don't survive then there is no way the genes can be passed on) and part of surviving is being competitive. If being competitive was not a trait that can be passed down then I really fail to see how any species could really survive. That and if it did not you would have a hard time explaining how animals that are not raised by older members of the spices survive at all.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

I think we should be able to argue opinions, otherwise how are we supposed to have any kind of discussion?